OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

According to the Protestant religion, No one gets into heaven by what they do or don't do.

Maybe you should do some research on the Protestant concept of "salvation".

Hitler just might be in heaven, who knows but the one worthy to judge.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Fortunately, Martin Luther doesn't get to play the judge, Christ does.

However I think it is fair to say that there is no way Hitler would be amongst the comparatively few who go to heaven to rule with Christ.

It i much more likely that he will get a resurrection onto the earth after Armageddon.

Why?

Well death is the penalty for sin and he has paid that penalty so the chances are that he will be coming back in the resurrection.

What Hitler did to the Jews is, in some ways, less important than what he did to Jehovah's real people, but I doubt that will weigh any heavier in the judgement, but when they come back also the chances are they will be given the role of teaching him.

Anyone who has a problem with that is unlikely to last long even if they are allowed to be there.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

Wow. You've hit about as high as you can hit on the herasy and blasphemy odometer.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

It looks like you need to go over Mark 9:33-35.

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

It gets worse. All he needed to go in go to the Pope for confession, believe is Jesus, and POOF! Hitler in Heaven. This makes me feel sick.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

According to Christianity, Hitler might be in heaven anyway. All he had to do is ask Jesus to forgive him right before he died.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

According to Christianity, Hitler might be in heaven anyway. All he had to do is ask Jesus to forgive him right before he died.

Precisely.

And to think Christians nonetheless have the gal.Do get down off your high Christian horses.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

It looks like you need to go over Mark 9:33-35.

Mark 9:33-3533 And they came into Ca"perE7;na"um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: "What were you arguing about on the road?"+ 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all."

I am not entirely sure where you are going with that.

My dispute with you is not whether either of us is a better servant of Jehovah, which is what Christ is talking about there. but is simply down to the fact that you claim to be Christian but are not, by a very long way.

Not one of the Apostles taught false teachings as you do.

For myself I always keep Luke 17:7-10 in mind7 "Which one of you who has a slave plowing or shepherding would say to him when he comes in from the field, "Come here at once and dine at the table"? 8 Rather, will he not say to him, "Get something ready for me to have my evening meal, and put on an apron and serve me until I finish eating and drinking, and afterward you can eat and drink"? 9 He will not feel gratitude to the slave because he did what was assigned, will he? 10 Likewise, when you have done all the things assigned to you, say: "We are good-for-nothing slaves. What we have done is what we ought to have done.""

It helps me to remember what I am, as Jesus intended it to.

I am after all, nothing more than a slave.

A slave of Jehovah, because I have a duty to bear witness to his glorious promises.

A slave of Christ, because it is my duty to draw attention to his role in his father's plan to bring humanity back to holiness.

A slave of humanity, because I have the obligation to show as many as will listen the way to "Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it." Matthew 7:13, 14.

I am in debt to all men because Jehovah has, through Christ, granted me knowledge which I owe it to all men to share.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

Wow. You've hit about as high as you can hit on the herasy and blasphemy odometer.

Not at all there is nothing either heretical or blasphemous in what I teach, unlike your teachings.

Still I can only expect to be accused of that because my King was accused of blasphemy also.

I pity you because unless you wake yourself up, one day you are in for a very rude awakening.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

Wow. You've hit about as high as you can hit on the herasy and blasphemy odometer.

Not at all there is nothing either heretical or blasphemous in what I teach, unlike your teachings.

Still I can only expect to be accused of that because my King was accused of blasphemy also.

I pity you because unless you wake yourself up, one day you are in for a very rude awakening.

Your JW fathers used to use the King James Version. They had to create the NWT to match their teachings. That tells it all.

Matthew 7:6-

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

Only his father is infallible, but since Christ generally acts under his instructions errors were rare even whilst he was human, and akin to hens teeth now he has returned to his spirit state.

That is why, when a Pharisee called him "Good Teacher", Christ chastised him roundly and said that only God is good.

Also Jesus did not have to chastise all of the 12, mostly Peter, and in a roundabout way Judas Iscariot.

Of course only 11 of them survived to be Apostles, and they voted Matthias in as #12, though the glorified Jesus himself converted Saul, later called Paul, as his Apostle to the Nations, making for a total of 13 Apostles all told.

There is no record of the majority of them making serious mistakes, only relatively unimportant ones, apart from Peter, again, who had to be publicly reproved by Paul for his wrong teachings due to fear of men. Something which had proved a problem for him before.

Wow. You've hit about as high as you can hit on the herasy and blasphemy odometer.

Not at all there is nothing either heretical or blasphemous in what I teach, unlike your teachings.

Still I can only expect to be accused of that because my King was accused of blasphemy also.

I pity you because unless you wake yourself up, one day you are in for a very rude awakening.

Your JW fathers used to use the King James Version. They had to create the NWT to match their teachings. That tells it all.

Matthew 7:6-

They still use the KJV, and the ASV, and the NIV, and just about any other translation they can get their hands on.

However they did not change the Bible to match their teachings they have always changed their teaching to match the Bible.

There was not need to change the translation to prove their teachings because they can, and do if requested, teach the same things from any translation you care to name, however dishonest.

Which of course is where that false accusation falls down.

No there are two reason for the NWT:

1: Greater accuracy, which is why they are still working on revising it to this day.

2: More understandable to speakers of modern language.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

You know as well as I do that scripture reveals two errors of Christ. I have shown you them many times over.

You also know as well as I do that by his own admission Jesus did not know everything.

The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem not mine. It shows that you cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone with others.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

According to Christianity, Hitler might be in heaven anyway. All he had to do is ask Jesus to forgive him right before he died.

Yet the way he died is often recorded as double suicide, or a homicide + suicide. Eva Braun poisoned and Hitler shot.

It's hard to reconcile such a death with a repentant Christ loving nature.

but you aren't the judge of immortal souls either. I'm sure there are things you think a person is free to do, that would be sinful or repulsive to conservative Christian.

To someone it might be repulsive that a mother could kill her child in the womb, and yet with a repentant Christ orientated change of mind be allowed into heaven.

While you find this repulsive i find it amazing that the saving grace of God, has no boundaries.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

You know as well as I do that scripture reveals two errors of Christ. I have shown you them many times over.

You also know as well as I do that by his own admission Jesus did not know everything.

The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem not mine. It shows that you cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone with others.

Yes, honesty is commendable.Too bad your internet persona display so little of it around here.

You have been caught passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read. This qualifies as lying. You have deliberately and continuously circumvented the Governing Body's advice to not engage in internet proselytizing but routinely admonish everyone else to follow the Governing Body's advice on all other aspects of life. This qualifies as hypocrisy. And, if I recall correctly, you also admitted to not having informed the local body of elders of your forum activities whilst still in the present condition of a disfellowshipped Witness. You rightly discern that if the said body of elders were ever to become aware of such clandestine activities that in and of itself would surely diminish, if not ruin, your chances of becoming a witness in good standing once again some time in the near future. And this also qualifies as deceitful disingenuous behaviour.

The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem not mine. It shows that you cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone with others.

Yes, honesty is commendable.

For those who wish to serve Jehovah and Christ honesty is absolutely vital.

Too bad your internet persona display so little of it around here.

You have been caught passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read. This qualifies as lying. You have deliberately and continuously circumvented the Governing Body's advice to not engage in internet proselytizing but routinely admonish everyone else to follow the Governing Body's advice on all other aspects of life. This qualifies as hypocrisy. And, if I recall correctly, you also admitted to not having informed the local body of elders of your forum activities whilst still in the present condition of a disfellowshipped Witness. You rightly discern that if the said body of elders were ever to become aware of such clandestine activities that in and of itself would surely diminish, if not ruin, your chances of becoming a witness in good standing once again some time in the near future. And this also qualifies as deceitful disingenuous behaviour.

Which books have I been "passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read"?

Your memory is not correct. The Elders in my local congregation are well aware of my internet activity. I have even informed them of it in writing.

Like you say it is only advice not to. There is no commandment against it, either scriptural or from the Governing body, they do however recommend caution.

There are active JWs who come on here from time to time, and they are most encouraging. Generally however they treat this forum as my territory, jut popping n every now and again to see how I am doing.

After all, how can they criticise anyone for using the internet when they do so themselves. They have three internet sites of their own, all of which I use.

You really are not at all well informed about JW teachings and advice are you?

Not a sparkling curriculum, I'm afraid.

I am sorry you see it that way. I am glad that neither Christ nor Jehovah do so or I would not be grated the holy spirit which I get to enable me to do it.

I may currently be persona non grata with the human arm of Jehovah's organisation, not least because as yet I have given them no real reason to re-instate me, not having attended meetings for a number of years and not being likely to for at least 6 months now, even if I can get transport to get there.

However, as Paul put it, Jehovah's spirit most definitely bears witness with my spirit that I am acceptable to him and his son.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem not mine. It shows that you cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone with others.

Yes, honesty is commendable.

For those who wish to serve Jehovah and Christ honesty is absolutely vital.

Too bad your internet persona display so little of it around here.

You have been caught passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read. This qualifies as lying. You have deliberately and continuously circumvented the Governing Body's advice to not engage in internet proselytizing but routinely admonish everyone else to follow the Governing Body's advice on all other aspects of life. This qualifies as hypocrisy. And, if I recall correctly, you also admitted to not having informed the local body of elders of your forum activities whilst still in the present condition of a disfellowshipped Witness. You rightly discern that if the said body of elders were ever to become aware of such clandestine activities that in and of itself would surely diminish, if not ruin, your chances of becoming a witness in good standing once again some time in the near future. And this also qualifies as deceitful disingenuous behaviour.

Which books have I been "passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read"?

Your memory is not correct. The Elders in my local congregation are well aware of my internet activity. I have even informed them of it in writing.

Like you say it is only advice not to. There is no commandment against it, either scriptural or from the Governing body, they do however recommend caution.

There are active JWs who come on here from time to time, and they are most encouraging. Generally however they treat this forum as my territory, jut popping n every now and again to see how I am doing.

After all, how can they criticise anyone for using the internet when they do so themselves. They have three internet sites of their own, all of which I use.

You really are not at all well informed about JW teachings and advice are you?

Not a sparkling curriculum, I'm afraid.

I am sorry you see it that way. I am glad that neither Christ nor Jehovah do so or I would not be grated the holy spirit which I get to enable me to do it.

I may currently be persona non grata with the human arm of Jehovah's organisation, not least because as yet I have given them no real reason to re-instate me, not having attended meetings for a number of years and not being likely to for at least 6 months now, even if I can get transport to get there.

However, as Paul put it, Jehovah's spirit most definitely bears witness with my spirit that I am acceptable to him and his son.

I know more about the JW's history and their present teachings while in my REM sleep than you do awake. You have made sweeping statements about so-called apostate literature you have confessed to not having read a single line of. Obviously, you cannot have an informed opinion on a book you haven't read and therefore your pronouncements are vacuous and tantamount to lying. The fact you can't even seem to get this straightforward link is very revealing. But one should expect that from someone who quotes Einstein in their signature without, evidently, having the faintest idea of what Einstein actually believed with regards to religion and without having the vaguest notion of what the context is. Quote mining, in the good old Watchtower tradition of dishonesty, stupidity and hillbilly ignorance.

I despise the paedophile-harbouring cult you defend, whose leadership has admired - on record - and - in court - that they kept lists with names of abusers. Yet, they withheld them from the police. This, of course, to protect the reputation of the organization.

Moreover, from the recently leaked material, we have learned that they have issued direct and explicit instructions not to have sensitive matters such as paedophilia allegations discussed in writing, obviously , again, so not to leave any traceable record.

Nauseating.

There is also one additional potential tremendous implication. If were ever to surface that one of the abusers was committing said crimes against the children before he became an Elder, or even a Ministerial Servant, that would on its own completely destroy the notion that it is God's Holy spirit that directs the appointment of men to such leadership positons, for God, in Christian theology, would never ever promote a paedophile to a role of provenience within His organization.

All it takes is one name to surface. Just one. And Boom!I haven't looked into it. It shouldn't be hard.Boom! An entire doctrine gone to ashes and exposed for the vicious self-serving lie that it is.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

You know as well as I do that scripture reveals two errors of Christ. I have shown you them many times over.

MadClown, you have continually pointed us to two instances, both of which include figures of speech, in which YOU claim that Christ made errors. Generally, you have done this to pacify yourself that, "Oh, even Jesus Christ made errors; therefore, I can ignore the multiplicity of errors of the WatchTower." The trouble is: the "error" in both instances is ... your error.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

You know as well as I do that scripture reveals two errors of Christ. I have shown you them many times over.

MadClown, you have continually pointed us to two instances, both of which include figures of speech, in which YOU claim that Christ made errors. Generally, you have done this to pacify yourself that, "Oh, even Jesus Christ made errors; therefore, I can ignore the multiplicity of errors of the WatchTower." The trouble is: the "error" in both instances is ... your error.

No I have pointed out two instance where Christ made errors, you assume they are figures of speech because that is what you wish them to be.

In fact they are not and are included i the text for the same reason everything is included. To teach us something.

A complete waste of time with you since you have no inclination to learn.

"Three days and three nights" is not a figure of speech, it is a specific time period.

Christ indicating his body as being resurrected is also not a figure of speech, and it is only the explanation included by the writer which tells us what Christ actually meant.

In both cases Christ was wrong, as scripture shows.

WI really on't understand your problem, Christ was human. Humans, inspired or not make mistakes. Christ knew and admitted he did not know everything, very few of us have any idea at all of what we don't know. Why would Christ be any exception to that, since he was human, with human weaknesses at that point in his existence.

I know I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you, but it seems I cannot ignore you as much as I would like, along with all the other ones who have no wish to learn and no desire for truth unless it suits what they wish to believe.

But hey ho, where the spirit drives, there I go.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem not mine. It shows that you cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone with others.

Yes, honesty is commendable.

For those who wish to serve Jehovah and Christ honesty is absolutely vital.

Too bad your internet persona display so little of it around here.

You have been caught passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read. This qualifies as lying. You have deliberately and continuously circumvented the Governing Body's advice to not engage in internet proselytizing but routinely admonish everyone else to follow the Governing Body's advice on all other aspects of life. This qualifies as hypocrisy. And, if I recall correctly, you also admitted to not having informed the local body of elders of your forum activities whilst still in the present condition of a disfellowshipped Witness. You rightly discern that if the said body of elders were ever to become aware of such clandestine activities that in and of itself would surely diminish, if not ruin, your chances of becoming a witness in good standing once again some time in the near future. And this also qualifies as deceitful disingenuous behaviour.

Which books have I been "passing definite pronouncements on books you have admittedly not read"?

Your memory is not correct. The Elders in my local congregation are well aware of my internet activity. I have even informed them of it in writing.

Like you say it is only advice not to. There is no commandment against it, either scriptural or from the Governing body, they do however recommend caution.

There are active JWs who come on here from time to time, and they are most encouraging. Generally however they treat this forum as my territory, jut popping n every now and again to see how I am doing.

After all, how can they criticise anyone for using the internet when they do so themselves. They have three internet sites of their own, all of which I use.

You really are not at all well informed about JW teachings and advice are you?

Not a sparkling curriculum, I'm afraid.

I am sorry you see it that way. I am glad that neither Christ nor Jehovah do so or I would not be grated the holy spirit which I get to enable me to do it.

I may currently be persona non grata with the human arm of Jehovah's organisation, not least because as yet I have given them no real reason to re-instate me, not having attended meetings for a number of years and not being likely to for at least 6 months now, even if I can get transport to get there.

However, as Paul put it, Jehovah's spirit most definitely bears witness with my spirit that I am acceptable to him and his son.

I know more about the JW's history and their present teachings while in my REM sleep than you do awake. You have made sweeping statements about so-called apostate literature you have confessed to not having read a single line of. Obviously, you cannot have an informed opinion on a book you haven't read and therefore your pronouncements are vacuous and tantamount to lying. The fact you can't even seem to get this straightforward link is very revealing. But one should expect that from someone who quotes Einstein in their signature without, evidently, having the faintest idea of what Einstein actually believed with regards to religion and without having the vaguest notion of what the context is. Quote mining, in the good old Watchtower tradition of dishonesty, stupidity and hillbilly ignorance.

I despise the paedophile-harbouring cult you defend, whose leadership has admired - on record - and - in court - that they kept lists with names of abusers. Yet, they withheld them from the police. This, of course, to protect the reputation of the organization.

Moreover, from the recently leaked material, we have learned that they have issued direct and explicit instructions not to have sensitive matters such as paedophilia allegations discussed in writing, obviously , again, so not to leave any traceable record.

Nauseating.

There is also one additional potential tremendous implication. If were ever to surface that one of the abusers was committing said crimes against the children before he became an Elder, or even a Ministerial Servant, that would on its own completely destroy the notion that it is God's Holy spirit that directs the appointment of men to such leadership positons, for God, in Christian theology, would never ever promote a paedophile to a role of provenience within His organization.

All it takes is one name to surface. Just one. And Boom!I haven't looked into it. It shouldn't be hard.Boom! An entire doctrine gone to ashes and exposed for the vicious self-serving lie that it is.

You mean you think you do, lol.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 4/17/2016 6:25:23 PM, Jovian wrote:OK I should try to keep this thread civil. However, if protestantism is the true religion, that should mean Martin Luther would know best of who will get into heaven or not. Martin Luther wrote a book where he called for burning down Jews' houses and synagogues, forbidding them to their religion, and enslave them. This is almost exactly what Hitler did to them, with one little exception, Hitler genocided Jews, which Luther seemed to not want.

Let's play with the thought that Hitler made all things he did to the Jews, but not genociding them. All concentration camps would be there, with all European Jews inside them, but no killing. It would had been exactly like Martin Luther wanted, since the Nazis also made the Jews and the other groups in the camps work against their will.

So if Hitler never killed them, wouldn't he be in heaven then, given Luther would be proud of him if he would witness this? And could a Protestant really claim Luther totally misinterpreted Christianity, given he was the one who started the religion, thus being the most important person to it?

Who said Martin Luther was any type of moralcompass to any Christians?

It doesn't make sense to me that the founding father of a religious school should within the adherents of the school be treated as some random lunatic speaking nonsense.

The 12 apostles were well...the 12 apostles. Great men? Sure. But they weren't Christ. We look to the general ideas of the apostles and find them in high standing, but Christ Himself scolded them multiple times for things they said and did. No one other than Christ is infallable. Not Martin Luther, not Abraham, not Saint Peter, not the Pope, not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham. They are flawed sinful humans with flaws. Only Christ.

Wrong again, unsurprisingly considering how little you know about scripture.

Christ himself is not infallible, never was, especially when on earth. Scripture clearly shows that he made two erroneous statements.

No, it doesn't - and nobody other than the crackpot Jehovah's Witnesses feel such pressure which results in such a ridiculous claim. And one of these "errors" is pronounced an "error" by you simply because it conflicts 100% with WatchTower nonsense.

In fact, you've gone so far as to claim Jesus uttered an absurd impossibility, i. e. the poor fella just didn't know any better.

You know as well as I do that scripture reveals two errors of Christ. I have shown you them many times over.

MadClown, you have continually pointed us to two instances, both of which include figures of speech, in which YOU claim that Christ made errors. Generally, you have done this to pacify yourself that, "Oh, even Jesus Christ made errors; therefore, I can ignore the multiplicity of errors of the WatchTower." The trouble is: the "error" in both instances is ... your error.

No I have pointed out two instance where Christ made errors, you assume they are figures of speech because that is what you wish them to be.

In fact they are not and are included i the text for the same reason everything is included. To teach us something.

A complete waste of time with you since you have no inclination to learn.

"Three days and three nights" is not a figure of speech, it is a specific time period.

Christ indicating his body as being resurrected is also not a figure of speech, and it is only the explanation included by the writer which tells us what Christ actually meant.

Christ indicating his body as being resurrected is also not a figure of speech, and it is only the explanation included by the writer which tells us what Christ actually meant.

"Destroy this temple" is not a figure of speech?

The phrase is obviously, but not what he was implying by it, and therein lies one of Jesus' two errors. He was indicating his body, and that was not resurrected as scripture shows us.

The body could not be resurrected, it would have invalidated the sacrifice had it done so.

A fresh human body would have been pointless since the easiest way would always be for the resurrected Word, now the Christ, could so easily do what he did, and materialise one. Much easier than the alternative, and convenient aso.

Sorry there you have it, one of Jesus mistakes, and to argue against that fact is to ignore the evidence in scripture, but then you are good at that when the evidence doesn't suit you aren't you.

Any way you look at it, it was an error on Jesus part, and an error which was corrected by the calendar at that.

I know you don't like it Anna. Tough, truth is still truth no matter whether or not we like it.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

Christ indicating his body as being resurrected is also not a figure of speech, and it is only the explanation included by the writer which tells us what Christ actually meant.

"Destroy this temple" is not a figure of speech?

The phrase is obviously, but not what he was implying by it, and therein lies one of Jesus' two errors. He was indicating his body, and that was not resurrected as scripture shows us.

The body could not be resurrected, it would have invalidated the sacrifice had it done so.

No, it wouldn't. That's simply your theory: "In order to be a sacrifice, the body must stay dead!"

Sorry there you have it, one of Jesus mistakes, and to argue against that fact is to ignore the evidence in scripture, but then you are good at that when the evidence doesn't suit you aren't you.

He died. He was buried. He was resurrected. Same He.

But the flesh was not resurrected, it could not be.

Who said it couldn't? Obviously Jesus Christ knew a tad more about it than some old clown mixed up with the BotchTower who speculates about "invalidating" the sacrifice. Why didn't the Son of God know this? Why didn't Paul know it?

The ONLY thing placed out in the grave is the body. That's it. There is no "personality" there. There is no "spirit" there. All that's there is the temporary tabernacle in which the spirit and personality resided. Yet "it" is sown, or planted, in the grave as a natural body - and "it" is raised as a changed, spiritual body. That's why "He" died - and "He" was buried - and "He" was raised.

Yet you speculate, "... it could not be (raised)." Well, Jesus said it could be. Paul said it was.